This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Al-Shabaab militants storm a military base in Puntland. The subsequent battle with the Somali military leaves at least 70 people dead. Somali officials called the attack the deadliest in the country in years. (Al Jazeera)
In its third strike near the town of Al-Tanf in recent weeks, the United States bombs Syrian government and allied troops, striking two out of three technical vehicles about 24 miles from the U.S. Coalition's At-Tanf base in Southern Syria. (CNN)
Shortly after bombing Syrian government and allied troops near Al-Tanf, the United States shot down an Iranian-made Syrian government drone that was flying toward U.S.-led coalition forces in southern Syria. There are no injuries or damage. An American official says this is first time forces supporting Damascus have attacked coalition troops. (Reuters)(AP via The Washington Post)(CNN)
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration asks pharmaceutical manufacturer Endo International plc to withdraw its long-lasting (12 hours) opioid painkiller, Opana ER, from the market after an FDA panel concluded the drug's benefits no longer outweighed the risks of abuse. Endo is evaluating its options. (Reuters)
U.S. authorities charge two operatives, Samer El Debek, 37, of Dearborn, Michigan, and Ali Kourani, 32, of the Bronx, New York, belonging to the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah with terrorism offenses, accused of plotting to target American and Israeli targets in New York and Panama. (Newsweek)
The state of Hawaii becomes the first state to enact a law, to document sea level rise and set strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that aligns the state's goals with the Paris climate accord. GovernorDavid Ige says the islands are seeing the impacts of climate change first-hand. (NBC News)
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Question - @Sherenk1:: how will this play out as a news item on ITN? If Theresa May and the Tories simply maintain a majority of similar size to their current one (a likely outcome, given polls), the status quo will only slightly be changed, as the only major difference will be the length of time the Conservatives have in power. There will be no new PM or governing party in this scenario. If this transpires, will we post? Stormy clouds (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support major find in paleo-archaeology, increases the age of Homo sapiens by 50% and gives a broad continental domain for early humans. While there have been lots of paleo-biological discoveries in the past few years, this single one convincingly challenges established theories of genesis and migration of humans on nearly all points. Article is fine. News was frontpaged on the BBC and LA Times early today, and also on Natures feed.128.214.69.207 (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The giant South Africa based cement company, PPC Ltd., presents its first quarter results, dominated by the "impact of a liquidity crisis precipitated by an unexpected S&P debt downgrade." (Reuters)
A U.S. House resolution unanimously passes 397–0 calling for all Turkish security guards involved in the May 16 clashes to be charged and prosecuted under United States law. (The New York Times)
The oldest fossil records of Homo sapiens are discovered in Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, dated at between 300,000 and 350,000 years old. The earliest Homo sapiens fossils had been dated as 200,000 years old. (Washington Post)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Post-posted-support – yes agree, this article is comprehensive and the sourcing is very good. Maybe it should be up for GA consideration (?). I randomly checked various Italian-language sources via Google Translate, and it seems that this article has been carefully attended to, by various editors, for awhile now. Christian Roess (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] [Ongoing] The United Nations Ocean Conference
Closing good faith nom. Event not an ongoing ITN item. Consensus against posting was established when this was suggested as a blurb. Circumstances have not been altered since, and the nom features personal attacks on other editors. This won't be posted. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Global, highly notable news which got sufficient news coverage around the world and is more than appropriate here. I suggested a blurb, instead of an Ongoing-entry, earlier which was opposed.
A conference
By the United Nations
Unique in kind and a premier
With sufficient press coverage around the world
On a highly signficiant subject that affects billions worldwide
is very notable imo. We are allowed to and very much should make such decisions. Let's fairly decide on this together. ____________________________________
For those who say that there's many other conferences we well and that we haven't posted many so far or that it doesn't meet some current / alleged / personal requirements: why would a high number of conferences prevent conferences being posted to the In the news-section? Also I don't think that it's that many conferences. Especially when we only post the ones on highly notable, global subjects.
For those who say that the conference is "just talk", "means nothing" or would "only be relevant if there are some concrete outcomes or treaty of it" etc: the conferences themselves as well as potential non-agreements or inaction are of high interest to the public and notable. Furthermore there are already some concrete results such as over 800 voluntary committments on things like managing protected areas and a platform for fishing-transparency. As a sidenote events such as this one are uncomparably more significant than sports events which keep getting posted.
For those who say that the article is not in an appropriate state I ask them to elaborate what exactly they mean and that (at best) they themselves improve it. I don't think it's in an inappropriate state.
Furthermore while I do try to and still do maintain good faith it increasingly seems considerable that (mainly? US-based) users The Rambling Man, Masem, Iridescent, 331dot, WaltCip and Sca aim to hold monopoly on decisions being made here with a particular intend that might cause the In the news-items to be rather biased in a particular way. I say this because I've been a bit estranged by some of their participations here for quite some time and as the last discussion was closed with basically only their vote-comments rather quickly before others participated as well. That might very well be simply because they as interested citizens like to take part in the In the news-section discussions - but if that's indeed the case I still would like to include the possibility of bias. Furthermore I'd like to thank @EMsmile: for working some relevant info into Sustainable Development Goals. I hope that this time, today on the World Oceans Day, more people will participate in this discussion and ask it not to be closed too early and before quite a number of other people participated as well.
This is very important − imo everything is pointing towards inclusion in the In the news-section and I can't see any good reason not to. What do you say? Fixuture (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Oppose This was closed once. You don't get to abuse the system and open a second nomination of the same thing. LordAtlas (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Please assume good faith too: I'm not "trying to waste people's time" - that makes no sense at all - and I am not trying to "game the system". --Fixuture (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vehemently Oppose - As above. This is not ab ongoing news item, and was already shot down. You need consensus here - this page cannot be used as a battering ram. The story is important, but stop trying to force the issue. Moreover, don't levy baseless accusations against other editors. They are sinply following consensus opinion and procedure. This should not be posted, and you should reconsider rationally the way in which you approach this community and its project, as your current strategy will not suffice any further. To quote Leslie Odom Jr, "careful how you proceed good man, intenperate indeed good man" etc. We all have to adhere to the rules, even when we don't like the outcome. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that was shut down was a blurb. This discussion is about an Ongoing item. The conference is ongoing. Yes and I hope to build consensus in this discussion. I'm not trying to force the issue but am taking up the responsibility for us, the Wikipedia community, to feature important stories / information when we can and when it's appropriate. These were not accusations but a note about a concern about bias that I have. I adhere to the rules.
Oppose as misunderstanding or misapplication of the system. Ongoing is for events which are long-term and persistently in the news, which have either had a blurb posted which cannot remain indefinitely despite the persistence of coverage, or are considered important enough but difficult to produce an appropriate blurb for. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This event is long-term in its effects and outcomes and is persistently in the news for the few days that it takes place. It would only be displayed under Ongoing for these few days. And it is certainly important enough. Please take a step back and reassess - we should not become a static bureaucracy but open-mindedly, progressively and lively assess each nomination and rationale even if they, potentially, might imply changes. --Fixuture (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fixuture: - discussion is closed. I am issuing this comment to tell you to refrain from any further argument, a the discussion has been explicitly closed, and I have now brought that to your attention. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: I fleshed out the article to a significant degree and added multiple reputable references before suggesting it here. This story is certainly of international importance and is attracting worldwide attention, so merits addition to ongoing. The recent page activity backs this up in my opinion. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Raqqa has been repeatedly described as the de facto capital of the Islamic State, so this battle exceeds any regular conflicts in the region in terms of importance and scale. It means that the coalition forces have the opportunity to strike a serious blow to Daesh, and is being reported thusly globally. Therefore, it should be placed in ongoing. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I would have liked to see a bit more coverage (for some reason it's not very widespread, although it's there if I look for it), but there's sufficient coverage regardless. Banedon (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not seeing this on frontpages. It's overshadowed by things like yet another NK missile test, new Homo sapiens find (which would make a great blurb actually), and UK elections. Additionally, this is not the first time that we've been told Raqqa is on the verge of falling. If this gets frontpaged by RSes then I would support this, but it could very likely turn into another abortive attempt that goes nowhere and has no definitive end. By the sources in the article, the battle started on the 6th and the first neighborhoods were captured on the 8th. Give it a day or two to see how this shakes out.128.214.69.166 (talk) 07:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though I'm a little concerned that the YPGs are not mentioned in the lead; they are the major constituent of the SDF, after all. Vanamonde (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An aviation disaster of this magnitude is notable. Article looks in decent state considering how recently this was reported. --LukeSurltc13:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most of the causalities were family of military members, so this would not qualify as "losses in line of duty" that other military aviation disasters are typically treated as, so agree this likely is ITN. Article is sufficiently detailed for now knowing there's a long tail of news around the investigation and like. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while it may be inevitable, isn't this a little premature? The source in the nomination says the aircraft has been declared missing, not that it has crashed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as ready, it's now night in Myanmar and little likelihood of major developments until tomorrow morning (about midnight UTC). Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support as notability is undoubtedly there. Article a bit short for my tastes, but given that we don't deal in speculation I suppose there isn't too much more that can be said. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb updated, although I would expect the posting admin to make a final check and make any small adjustments necessary. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Attacks of this sort are rare in Iran. Still developing; ISIS seems to be responsible. Also may be a hostage situation. Will be a bit before this is ready but I wanted to bring it up. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This number of killed people, i.e. 8, contains the attackers, according to the Iranian official figures. We'd better report only the number of dead victims. Mhhosseintalk10:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not rare in Iran, just in Tehran. A big attack was in Balochistan a few weeks ago and Zarif travelled to Islamabad after tat too.Lihaas (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless, you know something I don't, the attack Lihaas appears to be referencing [13] is still in Pakistan's Balochistan province and not in Iran's Baluchestan. Dragons flight (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, but Lihaas clearly refered to the attack in Iran. But good to know that you have at least some basic search engine compentencies. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle as unusual for Tehran, but yes, it's still sketchy, and I expect it may take a while for details to emerge. Sca (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article is in my opinion long enough – though I'd never discourage more. However the unsourced statements tagged as citation needed are directly relevant to the argument that this is far enough out of the norm be posted (which I believe it is). Would be inclined to support when these are resolved. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Mhhossein's comment above. We've had this confusing problem on a number of similar news items - sometimes attackers are included, sometimes they're not.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A man who was yelling "This is for Syria" while attacking a police officer with a hammer near Notre-Dame de Paris, France is shot and wounded by another officer. Prosecutors open a terrorism probe. (Reuters)(AP)(BBC)
Three people are killed in a shooting, including the perpetrator, and two others are injured in an apparent domestic dispute in Sandy, Utah. (CBS News)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
No consensus will develop to post that a conference simply occurs, despite the protestations of the nominator. Stephen02:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Global, highly notable news which got sufficient news coverage around the world and is more than appropriate here. Alternatively it could be added to [Ongoing] but I very much support a blurb. If you don't like my suggested blurb add additional ones / edit. Fixuture (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posting the mere occurrence of a conference(either as a blurb or ongoing). Many conferences, seminars, and meetings occur on many subjects even under UN auspices. If a notable agreement comes out of the conference, that may merit posting. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Well I don't see a point here or at least don't agree: why would a high number of conferences prevent conferences being posted to the In the news-section? Also I don't think that it's that many conferences. Especially when we only post the ones on highly notable, global subjects. The conferences themselves as well as potential non-agreements are of high interest to the public and notable. As a sidenote events such as this one are uncomparably more significant than sports events which keep getting posted. --Fixuture (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me, I apologize for being unclear. My point is only that the mere occurrence of a conference is not necessarily notable. Anyone can hold a conference on any subject, but its occurrence isn't necessarily notable. (I'm holding a conference in my living room about Wikipedia editing, want to come?) That would change if something of note occurs there, such as a notable agreement or other change in policy. Otherwise the conference is just talk. Sports and conferences are different animals and hard to compare(some die hard fans would likely disagree with your significance statement, different things are important to different people). 331dot (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point is only that the mere occurrence of a conference is not necessarily notable. Anyone can hold a conference on any subject, but its occurrence isn't necessarily notable.
Alright, I agree with that.
That would change if something of note occurs there, such as a notable agreement or other change in policy. Otherwise the conference is just talk.
I do not agree that this only changes at that point and that it's "just talk". (As a sidenote over 800 voluntary commitments have already come out of the conference.)
Sports and conferences are different animals and hard to compare
I do not find them hard to compare but even if others find that hard to do that wouldn't be a reason not to.
Oppose per 331dot - this is not comparable to the G8 or G20 conferences which we generally do post due to their occurrences due to direct influence on world politics. Should there be some proposed treaty/etc., that would be a ITN element to post. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If this produces some kind of significant treaty (which seems somewhat unlikely given that as far as I can tell neither the US, Russia or India have even bothered to attend), that will be potentially newsworthy, but to judge by both the Wikipedia article and their own website this looks like an absolutely bog-standard UN junket (do you realize just how many of these things there are?) which is getting zero significant coverage and will be forgotten even by the participants within a week. This discussion is moot in any case, since the article is absolutely atrocious and packed with outright bullshit like The conference is the first-ever UN conference on oceans (what were UNCLOS I? and UNCLOS II? and UNCLOS III?) and couldn't be featured on the main page even if we wanted to. ‑ Iridescent23:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: Fixed that error. It seems to also be an error of the source.
I do not think that it's a standard conference with a significance comparable to most of the other ones. But even if there's a non-low number of such conferences that's imo no reason for why this should be insignificant / not ITN-worthy.
It did get signficiant coverage (maybe not in your country; note we don't intend to be US-biased).
I don't think it will be forgotten by participants within a week - that's just an unfounded claim of yours. And even if they do that would be notable as well and no reason for why the conference would be not notable or ITN-worthy.
I don't think the article is "absolutely atrocious" and invite you to correct any "outright bullshit".
(And now I wait for The Rambling Man to join the usual US/UK-based first responders that keep on opposing such ITN items, in the hope that others will participate as well.)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, the Maldives, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and the internationally recognized government of Yemen sever diplomatic ties with Qatar, ordering Qatari citizens in those countries to be expelled as well as cutting all land, air and sea connections. "National security," "media incitement" and Qatar's support of Iran are variously cited. (The Guardian)(AP)
The Turkish interior ministry announces that 130 people, living outside the country and suspected of militant links, will lose their citizenship unless they return to Turkey within three months and meet government standards. Named suspects include U.S.-based cleric Fethullah Gülen, and Peoples' Democratic Party leaders Faysal Sariyildiz, Tuğba Hezer, and Özdal Üçer. (Reuters)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose Per Lugnuts. Usually this is the sort of article I'd have a go at rescuing, but I don't have time tonight; hopefully someone will have a go at it. Black Kite (talk)17:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support I always feel a sense of dread going to look at an RD candidate in the pop culture or sports areas, but was pleasantly surprised to see the article is not only thorough, but excellently sourced as well. Black Kite (talk)15:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Breaking News, will add more appropriate sources when they come. Significant developments in foreign relations among Gulf States; more countries may follow. EternalNomad (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, but likely support This seems to be based on accusations that Qatar has been funding terrorism, but it's not 100% clear from the breaking stories. Regardless, with all three states severing ties and telling Qatar citizens they have a few weeks to get back, this is a major diplomatic issue in the region. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a bit of editing on this earlier today, and others have taken a lead to explain the BG of the situation much better and events of the last few weeks that are likely reasons for it (per sources), so this now seems ready to go. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article not adequately updated; some of the countries mentioned in blurb are NOT mentioned in article as having cut ties, and most importantly, the Wikipedia article provides zero context for the event. Readers learn nothing about the event by reading the Wikipedia article. That's not good for posting. Article will need a LOT of work before it is ready for the main page. --Jayron3204:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not going to oppose for now as this is breaking news. However the article does need some updating and there are a handful of CN tags that need to be addressed. Once these issues have been addressed I will take another look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there needs to be more an update. Events over the last week or two have led to this and that needs to be explained. (eg this was from Thursday for example - also please note I'm not questioning this being the right day to post, I'm just saying there was backhistory to consider). This didn't come out of left field. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the merits but I agree that more of an update is needed. It's unusual for a single country to break diplomatic relations with another country, let alone several in what seems to be a coordinated move. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are there better RS please? I cringe a bit at Sputnik because President Macron said they were no better than RT at spreading fake news...Zigzig20s (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is sufficiently notable, but the article is not yet ready. For a story like this, we need the article to have a fair bit of depth what this event actually means (both practically and politically) for the posting to be useful to readers. --LukeSurltc12:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose without prejudice. The article is frankly unsuitable for the frontpage. But, I want to stress that this is no fault of the nominator or editors. This was a very weird, bizarre and completely unforseen turn of events and I don't think even the most becoffeed analyst can make heads or tails of this. This absolutely deserves to get to the frontpage, but the article must be more than a dry reading of Foreign Office releases.128.214.185.142 (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support with improved article. With the closing of the airspace to Qatari aircraft by the involved countries, the dispute has escalated a lot. Qatar depends a lot on imports for its food and a lot of this has now been blocked, so Qatar will have to find other sources on the very short term, only Saudi Arabia's arch enemy Iran is able to fulfill that role. Count Iblis (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The death toll from the attacks is seven, with at least 48 injured. Officials say that the three attackers were killed by the police. (The Washington Post)(AP)(BBC)
Voters cast ballots to select representatives for rural and urban Cambodian precincts from, nationwide, 94,595 candidates for 11,572 council seats. Voter turnout was 85.74 percent with few reports of irregularities. According to early results, the opposition makes significant gains against the ruling party of Prime MinisterHun Sen. (Radio Free Asia)(Channel NewsAsia)(Reuters)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Apologies for the somewhat late nom. I was waiting for a more concrete ticket sales numbers, as opposed to the unsourced estimated number that was in the article on Sunday. The source I've included is the source used for the amount raised so far. There has been no announcement about how much was raised through any official fundraising method method other than the British Red Cross, but I wanted to get this into at least ITNC while it's still in the news. Note that, while the concert itself was a good idea, it's how much was raised that is really important and why I think it should be included in ITN. —Gestrid (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - The natural place to put it is to merge with the original Manchester attack blurb, but that's rolled off the box; further, with the London attack, this has been rather overshadowed. $13 million is also really not that much (we rejected a lot of blurbs for business deals much bigger than this size). Having said that, I did see quite a lot of coverage on this, hence I only weakly oppose this. Maybe it would have been better to nominate this as ongoing when the Manchester attack blurb rolled off the box. Banedon (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, business deals are generally made by people or businesses with a lot more money than most of us with the expectation of getting something in return. That people (mostly those in the UK, most likely, for a variety of reasons) gave that much money is pretty notable in my opinion. The numbers from the portions of the charity specifically setup for those outside the UK, including at least one US-based 501(c)(3) organization that partnered with the BRC, have not come out yet, but, as I said, I wanted to get this into ITNC before it no longer qualified as an ITN. —Gestrid (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's a good news story and it's a shame it's quite inconsequential I'm afraid. Things like Comic Relief and Children in Need routinely raise in excess of £50m in a night, so the magnitude of the fund-raising isn't particuarly notable either. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article is in good shape. The concert apparently attracted several performers, not just Grande. It raised a lot of money. It was definitely in the news, although I didn't watch it. ITN could do with more philanthropy, so I support this nomination.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good faith nomination, but it's not surprising a lot of money would be raised after a tragic incident. If more developments come out about the attack in the next few days, it might merit Ongoing(of which this fundraiser would be an incremental update) but it isn't significant enough on its own to post. 331dot (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a blurb that removes the reference to the computed US Dollar amount raised. The manual of style states that it in "country-specific articles, use the currency of the country." Also in "articles that are not specific to a country, express amounts of money in United States dollars, euros, or pounds sterling." I don't see the need to convert a GBP amount into US Dollars - this is not USA-pedia. Gfcvoice (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose. I wish there were a way of incorporating this into the blurb about London Bridge – much of the media coverage focussed on the fact that while that happened this still went ahead and was all the more poignant and defiant of terrorism as a consequence. Nonetheless I don't see how we can do it succinctly. If someone were to convince me otherwise I'd be delighted to support, but regrettably I can't justify supporting this as a stand-alone. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really didn't work that much of the article, just a few updates, put section with online streaming etc. This was a pretty amazing way to respond to a terror attack with an all-star A-list lineup organized in just a week, raised a huge amount of money. I agree with above that ITN needs more philanthropy. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it was something on the scope of Je Suis Charlie, a memorialized event across multiple continents, that would be something. A relatively local event from one that got worldwide attention is really not ITN-appropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose Not the type of story that makes for ITN, better as a DYK, if it could be fashioned for that. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good faith nom. I can't find anything in the article that seems to relate to the blurb. What is this supposed to be about? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Oppose for now. The results table near the bottom is still blank and there is an orange tag challenging the neutrality of the article at the top. Both of these issues need to be resolved before we can post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No prose about the election itself, the results, or the impact thereof. In addition to the table; which is a necessary (but not sufficient) update as well. --Jayron3203:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The neutrality tag has been removed. There are now % results for the first-preference votes. Because of the complex electoral system it seems that the seats have not yet been fully assigned. The candidates section needs the main parties added in districts 9-13. --LukeSurltc12:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will the article be OK for ITN once the candidates section is completed? It will take some more time until the seats are fully assigned (the counting process used in Maltese elections has been described as "painfully slow" by the Times of Malta here), but the victory for Labour is clear. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The candidates list is a data entry slog but it's almost there. A paragraph or two on "reactions" would be desirable as well. --LukeSurltc10:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Interior Ministry, three blasts at a funeral attended by MPs and government figures in Kabul kill at least seven people and wound 119 more. (The Guardian)
A van travelling at approximately 50 miles (80 km) per hour ploughs into pedestrians on London Bridge; the three occupants then abandon the van and embark on a stabbing spree in Borough Market before being shot dead by officers of the Metropolitan Police. At least six civilians are killed. (BBC)(CBC)
Arts and culture
Pope Francis meets with 400 children from towns hit by earthquakes in central Italy on August 24, 2016. A few children offer brief testimony about their experiences during the earthquake, which hit parts of central Italy and resulted in nearly 300 deaths. (Catholic News Agency)
In football, Real Madrid defeats Juventus 4–1. The Spanish team becomes the first to win back-to-back titles since the competition became known as the Champions League, and to win their 12th title in the competition. (Yahoo!)(Reuters)
Wait till we actually know the nature of this incident. It needs a blurb as well, but a blurb can't be added without more information. This is Paul (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paul, I'm sorry I do not have time to post in the correct format/procedure right now, as I'm personally trying to work out what the hell is happening in London.
I truly hope you'll be able to get this on the main page as quickly as possible, as I know there are many thousands of people, right now, desperately trying to get further information. And lots of us are looking at Wikipedia for it.
Wait Too many questions, and given the terror level is currently high in the UK from the Manchester attack, they are being extra cautious by treating these as connected incidents. In comment to the IP's statement above, we are not a newspaper and have no deadline, and people that come here to learn about breaking news are coming to the wrong place. BBC is a much better source than we are. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Something appears to have happened in London. That's about all we know right now. Frankly this nomination is probably premature since we don't even have a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is. I was contemplating nominating it (even came to ITNC a few time to check if someone else had done o). As of right now its not as notable as say Manchester (and well also be putting UK up on Friday before this would drop off). So oppose for now unless something biggerin reaction or casualties happens.Lihaas (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, unfortunately too early for this, article is also unstable with a couple of quite disruptive editors at the moment going at it. Sagecandor (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
support, the text from this bbc report: A van has struck pedestrians on London Bridge in central London leaving a number of casualties, including fatalities. Police have declared a "terrorist incident" there and at nearby Borough Market - it seems unlikely that this portion of the information will change and further information will be built upon these declarations. Leave off the information on the stabbings as the news sources seem to be in a state of confusion about these attacks. Edaham (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The police are assuming it is a terrorist incident given the recentness of Manchester, they have in no way verified the intent (even if it was an accident or intentional). It might be a terrorist event, but that's not based on the approach the police are taking in the immediate hours following it. And if this was just an accident or domestic crime, then its not appropriate for ITN. --MASEM (t) 01:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the whitewashing here is ridiculous. You guys would just like to pretend these sort of things never happened. Keep the white[insert_accurate_PC_color]washing going. 79.116.236.27 (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reopened I have reopened as I think the details have sufficiently settled down, enough to write a blurb. The hit-and-run on London Bridge and the stabbings at Borough Market were done by the same three perps (who are now dead), for a total of 9 deaths (including those 3) and 30 injured. Every other vent that has been noted the police have determined are unrelated events (the explosions at the Market were confirmed as controlled explosions). To that end, I also support posting this now. 6 innocent deaths + 30 more injured so shortly after the concert attack is notable. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is good to go. Another serious terrorist attack at the heart of a European capital city with a half-decent article? Please get on with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, but this is another serious terrorist attack at the heart of a European capital city with a half-decent article, the kind of thing we post at ITN. The story has very much stabilised so all the "wait" votes are effectively now covered. Cheers, God bless London. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the number of people urging speed in the postings above and tell me that some of them haven't been sucked into thinking that this is a news channel. Britmax (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Britmax: Are you arguing that the article was not ready for posting? If it was ready for posting, there is no need for an artificial and arbitrary hold on it. (such things have been considered and rejected in the past as well) 331dot (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article was ready for posting. I am considering arguing, in a more suitable place, that Wikipedia has become a news channel by stealth. I have already pointed out that ITN is part of this process. Within this process the article is fine but my argument is that this process should not be hosted here at all. This is not the place for that argument, though. Britmax (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's our Front Page, and ITN is a fixture there – something most readers expect to find and always look at. Sca (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No does arguing against this specific nom which clearly has more consideration applied than those I noted above. But as 331dot says below, you are free to open some discussion about ticker by stealth or whatever. After all, we could just rename the section, What was In The News. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Britmax: You are certainly free to attempt to make that argument, though for various reasons I won't repeat now it has been tried and failed many times. I don't think you will ever get consensus to remove this. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are certain stories that are going to have clear enduring notability (meeting NEVENT) in the first few hours, and this is effectively one of those (more than a few injured in the heart of a major metro center and shortly after an earlier attack a week+ prior? It's going to remain notable). Myself and others that initially !voted wait recognized that details were sparse and it was more a matter of making sure what we posted wasn't vague or based on guesses of the media. --MASEM (t) 10:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Oppose - This is neither the first terror attack in the UK (or London), not close to being the most serious. If we are going to be posting every terror attack that happens, ITN will shortly become a news ticker of the mundane and depressing. If people want news, there are plenty of news websites for that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so should a terror attack take place in Washington or New York or San Francisco, we can discount it because it's not the first in the United States and unless it has a death toll of more than 2,996 we can discount it because it's not the most serious? I think you're missing the primary purpose of ITN, To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, this story is still in the top news on BBC News, The New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Le Monde, El Pais, Pravda, Times of India etc etc, this is newsworthy around the globe nearly 36 hours later. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly yes. Its a minor terror attack with a low loss of life and little significant lasting impact (apart from possibly causing pedestrian barriers on bridges to be jumped to the top of the council works queue). You seem to think people are coming to ITN "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" which is not the case. They are coming here because articles like this are presented *as* news. The majority of breaking news articles are based almost entirely on primary news sources and are written like news articles. The only real difference between this and an article in an actual newspaper is the number of sources drawn upon. If the genuine purpose of ITN was to lead to encyclopedic content relevant to the breaking news, the title should just redirect to 'UK foreign policy in the Middle-east' or something similar. It would be vastly more educational. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's directly against the purpose of the project. And how you claim " little significant lasting impact" without a crystal ball is beyond me. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have a page for that WP:CRYSTALBALL. If you mean against the purpose of ITN - currently ITN is demonstratably not in line (for many articles) with its own stated purpose, being a sub-standard news ticker rather than providing encyclopedic content related to things that are in the news. This nomination is at best, a nicely written summary of primary news stories. Which is pointless to someone looking for information related to the news item. Just go to the BBC and find a better written summary, with the benefit its not being updated by 100 people with agendas. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you think the purpose of ITN needs re-defining, feel free to start the discussion, as this item clearly meets the requirements of the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I said, unambiguously, was that this article does not meet ITN's current stated purpose. It currently being a current news article based on current news articles. If you want re-define the project so that ITN allows basic news reports on current events. Feel free to start *that* discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then improve the article. The primary purpose of ITN is To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. As demonstrated, this is likely to be something the readers are searching for. I'm not the one making assertions otherwise so I have no need to start any discussion, it's down to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Background info is good. Article currently has statistical summary but not prose summary (update: looks like someone's working on it right now). LukeSurltc20:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until I finish writing the summary and have others pick it apart.Support now that the prose summary is done. Probably could add a post-match section too, given that Madrid set a few records in the final. SounderBruce21:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - match summary good – hats off to SounderBruce for getting it done so quickly. Ronaldo being pictured is something I also support if desired, as the current Main Page image just doesn't work at the necessary size. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A terrorist threat results in the evacuation of tens of thousands of fans at the first day of the annual Rock am Ring music festival at the Zeppelinfeld in Nuremberg, Germany. Organizers say they hope the festival will resume Saturday. (BBC)
As a result of North Korea's repeated missile tests, the United Nations Security Council expands its targeted sanctions against the country, adding to the U.N. blacklist four entities, including the Koryo Bank and the Army's Strategic Rocket Force, and 14 people, including the North's head of intelligence operations. (Reuters)
At least 37 people are killed in a deliberately lit fire at Resorts World Manila in the Philippines. The perpetrator stole gaming chips and fired gun shots before committing suicide. (CNN)
ISIL claims responsibility for the attack; however, authorities contend it is not terror related. (Reuters)
Five anti-government/anti-Taliban protestors are shot dead by police in Kabul, Afghanistan, after demanding that the government step down in the wake of the May 2017 Kabul attack. (BBC)
Former Pennsylvania State University president Graham Spanier, former vice president Gary Schultz, and former athletic director Timothy Curley are sentenced to prison for covering up ex-coach Jerry Sandusky's criminal sexual acts, thereby letting him victimize more boys. (Reuters)
Leo Varadkar becomes the new party leader of Fine Gael, after winning 51 of 73 votes in the parliamentary party, and is expected to become Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of Ireland, which would make him the youngest and first openly gay man to be Taoiseach, as well as being the first of half-Indian descent. (The Sun)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: British conductor, worked with various international orchestras. Article is in reasonably good shape thanks to others - I've only just spotted something about his death and thought a late nomination here might be worthwhile. BencherliteTalk21:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment - this may not be strictly encyclopedic as an argument, but getting some positive news on the main page would be pleasant among terror attacks and climate change issues. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. According to the article this is not a test flight, but merely the start of ground testing. I would support the first flight and first service flight of this, because it is a significant development, but we shouldn't post every step of the process, and I'm not convinced (so far) that this is a sufficiently notable step. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've renamed this nomination section from "Stratolaunch test flight" to "Stratolaunch begins ground testing" to avoid misunderstandings. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as encyclopedic and on article quality. Largest of the type, relatively novel use of a aircraft make it notable. A single clarification needed tag seems unnecessary to me; I didn't have trouble understanding the sentence.128.214.163.199 (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose as per Thryduulf. I think this design is notable, but the critical thing for a new aircraft is when (if?) it actually flies. I can see myself supporting when that happens. --LukeSurltc13:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in Support - for all the people querying about the actual flight of the plane, it is scheduled to first launch a test flight in 2019. I feel that this represents a significant enough period in time that we can just report on it twice, given that it is both a record-setting aeroplane (of high interest to Wikipedians) and as it has applications in space travel, meaning it is a truly ground-breaking development. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment it is an interesting and potentially ground-breaking aircraft, but it wont actually be ground-breaking until it leaves theg ground imo. If something notable happens during ground testing then feel free to nominate that, but this feels just like a routine step. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think ITN usually goes with "aircraft" to avoid complaints at WP:ERRORS from people who use whichever variety of English the blurb doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should reflect the nationality that the article has used. Since this is an American effort, I would expect "airplane" to be used. If it was a British company, "aeroplane". --MASEM (t) 16:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Just wondering – I thought perhaps aeroplane was becoming somewhat archaic, even in British English. No? Sca (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I got the idea from the fact that, even in the UK, one does not go out for a "breath of fresh aer." But whatever. Sca (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Operating on the ground is SOP for testing. Given this is meant to a potential air-borne rocket launching platform there are 2, perhaps three more points we'd definitely put to ITN: when it completes its air-worthiness tests and deemed ready to go, when a rocket is successfully launched from it in the air, and possibly if they plan a similar test while it is on the ground. The ground-testing is not really a key point even though news sources have picked up on that. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Thryduulf, TRM and others. Maiden flight should in my opinion be a no-brainer of a post. Should add that I do have sympathy with Stormy clouds' reasoning - the Main Page has been pretty grim of late. . StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question does wingspan actually matter? That is, is there any kind of technological barrier against having a plane with wingspan of e.g. 1 km? My understanding of skyscrapers is that we can already build much-higher skyscrapers than the world's tallest buildings, it's just a matter of desire, money, and practicality. If that's the same with planes as well then I don't see how this is worth posting. Banedon (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I don't know if a 1 km flying wing is impossible with current technology but we don't live in Star Wars so no benefit could possibly be gained from making a wing that long just to pulverize a world record to dust. Believe it or not but the skyscraper world record is limited by nausea. It is very possible to make a skyscraper taller with the same cost by following the bend so you don't break philosophy but it would sway alarmingly in high wind and that would make people seasick and freak them out. Alternatively, it could have a lower percentage of air but there'd be less floor to offset the increased amount of steel. Or the windows and exterior walls could be replaced by a thicker wall with no windows but people want to not work in a kilometer-tall vertical bunker. Or there could be columns everywhere but floors that are column-less from core to windows rent for more money. Or the core could have less elevators and more column but the elevators would become a transportation bottleneck. Or there could be more elevators per shaft but you'd have to change elevators too many times just to get near the top. Or elevators could be many floors tall but people can only tolerate double deck elevators. Or elevators could be made faster but the world elevator speed record is already 47 miles per hour and air resistance in the shaft is becoming a problem. Or the elevators could accelerate and decelerate faster but that would make people uncomfortable (or float in the air, which means you are falling). Or buildings could be wider and more pyramidal but this would cause an exponential increase in materials. Maximum distance from a window is also a limiting factor (people rich enough to live or work in the world's tallest building are picky). As for airplanes, it is very hard to get a very large airplane off the ground. The Airbus A380 needs to go like 175 miles per hour just to take off while small planes can take off at less than 65 miles an hour. If you scale an airplane up exactly the weight goes up with the cube of the size but the wing area and strength only goes up with the square of the size. And you cannot scale it up exactly (this is the reason a sparrow can have only 2 legs way thinner than it's body while an elephant has 4 tree trunks for legs and can't even jump) The Space Shuttle lands at 214 to 226 miles an hour and needs a parachute just to stop and it's not even as heavy as a jumbo jet (it needs to land that fast cause each kilo of wing takes like 10 kilos of fuel to send to space) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the problem right - if it's already possible to make a plane with 1km wingspan, but it's not done because of issues of practicality (the takeoff speed you mentioned), cost, and so on, then this really isn't much of an achievement. It just means someone has enough time and money to throw at this project, and there wasn't actually a technological breakthrough. Banedon (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's physically possible with current technology I'd guess it'd be nothing but wing, shaped somewhat like a bridge with buttloads of engines and slight arches and landing gears and maybe guy wires and designed so that some parts have more lift and and pull the other parts up like a suspension bridge and maybe only 100 meters long and 10-20 meters thick. It'd cost many billions of dollars - at least c.100 times this airplane and probably not a trillion dollars and could carry many times less percent of it's weight than a cargo plane (maybe close to zero). Ask someone who's isn't just making educated guesses if I'm right. And just because something is possible with current technology doesn't mean anything: If the world's current paint production level was used to paint America's land (ignoring places it can't stick) it could be done in 35 years but asking for 3 square meters of painting the ground per day per capita for decades is a bit much. Practicality is a consideration or we'd have fighter spaceplanes with rayguns in orbit and Mars colonies right now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Just putting this in as a placeholder for a result later. Winner will become Taoiseach, so it has international relevance. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's the change in Taoiseach rather than Fine Gael leader which we should stress in the blurb. Does this happen immediately? Fine Gael leadership election, 2017 is currently inadequate in its discussion of what this election means for the Irish executive, it doesn't actually even mention the word "Taoiseach" once. I support this on notability however, as pretty much all Prime Ministerial changes are notable. --LukeSurltc10:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Effectively, yes. However, like with the withdrawal from the Paris Accord, there is legal tape to circumvent first. However, unless the coalition falls apart (and all sides have vowed that it won't), the winner becomes Taoiseach within the next fortnight having won the election. In that way, reporting it in ITN is similar to Macron's victory. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thank you for this clarification. Would you be able to add something along these lines to the article? --LukeSurltc12:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stormy clouds and I have made some additions and I'm satisfied the article explains this well. We should make sure any blurb posted doesn't imply that the Taoiseach succession is immediate or guaranteed (as it's possible the government could collapse before the succession). I've had a go at this in alt II but my wording isn't very elegant. --LukeSurltc13:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a Leo Varadkar victory (something which looks like a foregone conclusion at this point) would be further notable as he would become the first LGBT Taoiseach, and one of the first European politicians to hold such a high office. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leo Varadkar has officially won, and a prime ministerial change will occur. Article focus has been changed to reflect this. Please postStormy clouds (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless my phone is loading a cached version, the article hasn't yet been updated to include the election results. These would be required before posting. --LukeSurltc17:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: The Dail vote on him becoming Taoiseach is NOT a formality. Fine Gael is in a minority Government dependent on continuing support from Fianna Fail and Independents. As Harold Wilson once said, a week is a long time in politics, and to assume there will be no hitches along the way is WP:Crystal. Following Varadkar's win, Fianna Fail leader Micheál Martin has already said that he wants to be assured that Varadkar genuinely intends to stick to the programme negotiated a year ago. Subject to the usual article quality requirements, I will definitely support posting if and when he is elected Taoiseach by the Dail (or when he then officially receives his seal of office from President Higgins a few hours later). Tlhslobus (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support now - although I see Tlhslobus' point, this is in the news now and in a week's time the election will no longer be news, and there isn't going to be an article on the Dail vote. News sources are using confident but not certain phrases such as Ireland "set" to have first gay PM and Leo Varadkar becomes Ireland's "prime minister-elect". Alt blurb II maintains this careful balance in the ITN style. In general terms we do not usually wait for inauguration when an election has produced a new something-elect.
In terms of the article quality, I think it's at minimum standards now, though some "reaction" coverage would be helpful --LukeSurltc19:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fully expect it will be in the news in both British and Irish media if and when he gets elected. If we post now and he doesn't get elected, we almost certainly won't post his non-election, so lots of our non-Irish readers will be carrying around misleading information in their heads for a long time to come. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say, not many non-Irish/non-British readers carry any information around in their heads about the Taoiseach – a title which to most of us sounds like something related to Eastern mysticism. – Sca (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, especially as regards non-Irish/non-British readers, but our posting this may cause them to carry around in their head the info that we Irish have elected a new (and gay) Prime Minister, which is fine if it turns out to be true, but not if it turns out to be mistaken. But you do implicitly raise a valid but relatively minor question as to whether the blurbs should be changed to refer to Prime Minister, with Taoiseach being hidden in a wikilink - however this relatively minor issue is just the sort of thing that can be debated at WP:ERRORS. Incidentally a mistaken posting is also quite likely to be carried around uncorrected in the heads of many British readers. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support. Stormy clouds' rationale for the largest ever aeroplane nomination (which I opposed) – that we need some good news on the page – does have some validity, and this is a story which if not posted now is going to be posted on the procedural date. My view is that if we end up with egg on our faces over posting this prematurely, it will be the example cited evermore as the reason why we never jump the gun. The reason I say "leaning support" rather than "IAR support" is that I want to be reassured that the gap between this election and Varadkar replacing Kenny is procedural rather than political in nature. If it's purely procedural, then forget all the bureaucracy and just do it now. If there's reason to believe there's anything more than a hypothetical but in practise non-existent chance of him not becoming Taoiseach, then obviously we must wait. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why nobody is reporting when it's going to happen is because there is currently nothing purely procedural about the matter - basically it will almost certainly become purely procedural (in practice if not in theory) if Fianna Fail leader Micheál Martin says 'go ahead', but so far all he has said is that he is seeking assurances that Varadkar is genuinely committed to the programme negotiated with Varadkar's predecessor a year ago (see my links and extract below in my next reply). If Martin says No, Varadkar will not become Taoiseach (at least not without months of negotiation and/or a general election). Tlhslobus (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The reliable sources are reporting this as meaning that he will become Taoiseach. I think we are entitled and probably bound to rely on that judgment rather than our own speculation. He will also be the first gay and first ethnic minority Taoiseach. Neljack (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps things have changed since, but last time I looked the most 'reliable' Irish source, RTE, made no mention of Varadkar as inevitable Taoiseach, but described him as 'a Dail vote away from being Taoiseach' ('Leo Varadkar, the new Fine Gael leader, is now a Dáil vote away from being the country's youngest ever taoiseach.'), and mentioned Fianna Fail leader Micheál Martin's statement that he is seeking assurances that Varadkar is genuinely committed to the programme negotiated with Varadkar's predecessor a year ago (here, with extract below). If Martin says No, Varadkar will not become Taoiseach, at least not without months of negotiation and/or a general election. I have also yet to see any reliable source give a date for when he will become Taoiseach, because nobody knows when the Dail vote will take place, presumably because Martin has yet to give any clear indication of what he will do in such a vote - if it was inevitable they would be telling us 'when the Dail meets next Tuesday (or Wednesday, or whenever)'. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Extract as promised above) RTE says here: Speaking on RTÉ's Six One News, Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin said he is looking forward to meeting with the new leader of Fine Gael, most likely in the next week. He said the "Fine Gael angst over the leadership issue" has meant that politics has not been as productive as it could have been. Mr Martin said his party will need reassurances from the new leader that he is committed to making Ireland a "fairer and more decent place". He said he also needs to ensure that Mr Varadkar will hold to the 'confidence and supply agreement' in good faith.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Changes in heads of state/government are what we report here, not the leadership of political parties. Once he becomes PM we can post the news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but for very good reasons (IMO) we don't post changes in the leadership of political parties. Yes, this nomination will likely be stale if he is not to become Taoiseach for another ten days. So what? Just renominate. And assuming the article is up to scratch, this will be posted because changes in heads of state/government are ITNR items. Also I think it will be more impressive to post the first openly gay PM in European history than the first gay political party leader. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A very relevant point of order, Jayron32. ITNR also says "Changes to the head of government are discussed on their own merits. If election is held in two rounds, only the second round results (i.e., when the official is actually elected) are usually posted." This is in effect a two-round election (first the party vote, then the Dail vote, which is the vote when he actually gets elected, assuming he does indeed get elected). Of course we could presumably also post now that Teresa May is "set" or "poised" to remain the British PM after next Thursday, on the basis that there are plenty of 'reliable sources' (possibly even The Irish Sun?) telling us she is "set" or "poised" to win the election. Indeed it is obviously absolutely disgraceful that we failed to let our readers know last October that Hillary Clinton was "set" and "poised" to be the first female President of the US.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem with its use of 'Prime Minister (Taoiseach)', but as Alt 3 says 'becoming Prime Minister' when he has NOT become Prime Minister (at least not yet), are you suggesting we should now be posting Fake News? Tlhslobus (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Irish Times article quoted above in support of posting (The Irish Times says "poised to become Ireland’s next and youngest-ever taoiseach") actually says "A decade later, the 38-year-old Varadkar is now the new leader of Fine Gael, poised to become Ireland’s next and youngest-ever taoiseach – assuming he can agree terms with Independents and Fianna Fáil.". The omission above of that 'assuming' clause totally changes the meaning of what the article said, in a manner that is thoroughly misleading. And we are given The Irish Sun as a 'reliable source', both above and in our current Varadkar article, which also fails to report the caution of reliable sources like The Irish Times and RTE (quoted above by me) when it just says (in its Leader of Fine Gael section) "He will become Ireland's first openly gay Taoiseach, as well as the youngest and the first of half-Indian descent.[23][24]" (by the way, [23] is The Irish Sun, basically the Irish edition of the famous British tabloid, which would not usually be seen as a reliable source, especially when it differs from RTE and The Irish Times). Where reliable sources differ this is supposed to be mentioned, so this also raises issues regarding article quality (I may or may not try to fix that myself later if I have the time and energy, but I'd first hope some person less involved in this dispute might do it instead).Tlhslobus (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Scientists announce that the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) has made a third detection of gravitational waves, named GW170104. The signal beam, detected on 4 January 2017, apparently results from a merger of two black holes of 19 and 31 solar masses. Such detections are said to be progressively moving this emerging field in astronomy "from novelty to new observational science". (BBC)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Concrete information is still sketchy, but supposedly this wasn't a mass shooting at all, and it may not even have been intended as an attack. Investigators are theorizing that this may have been a botched robbery, and most/all of the fatalities so far were caused by smoke inhalation. This should be posted either way, I would think, but it's still early. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Bongwarrior but note with some irony that the blurb it's likely to push out is the one on the Marawi crisis, which is also Phillipines related + takes up more news time in the country + will have longer-lasting consequences than this. Banedon (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting I saw this earlier and thought to nominate it, but I was unclear on what was going on and ended up taking a nap. I suggest being as vague as we can be in the blurb until specifics are confirmed. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regardless if the deaths were not a result of the attack, this would still be considered a significant disaster. Give it a couple more hours for stabilization of details before posting. --MASEM (t) 05:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is just the wording of the event. It reads as though the shooter shot everyone and that just wasn't the case.
Support with alt-blurb2. Major causality event, but current understanding is that no one was actually shot and that it was not an intentional attack / terrorism. Dragons flight (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think we should post Alt2. Whether or not this was terrorism is down to speculation. The local authorities assert that it was a robbery based on no evidence. ISIS claims the attack as their own, again with no evidence. There's circumstantial evidence either way: ISIS previously threatened to increase attacks as part of the local uprising; the perpetrators killed themselves during the attack; there was no use of explosives; no one was apparently shot; the perpetrators took a large amount of casino chips during the attack, and so one. I think it's better to call this an "attack" and change later to "robbery" if there's consensus from authorities, than to call it a "robbery" and then have to sift through the back-and-forth at ERRORS if it turns out to be terrorism.128.214.69.207 (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Trump's actions on climate change (Trump has said climate change is a Chinese hoax) has widely and internationally been cited as one point where he might make a big impact. This withdrawal is making headlines around the world. Thue (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that virtually every other country had committed to it. Now that the US is out, it might destabilize the whole agreement, since the US might hypothetically gain a competitive advantage by polluting unchecked. So it could conceivably have the consequence that China quits it too. So I can't see how you think the big news is that China had previously committed to it (when China thought the US was also in). Also, "rather than yet another Trumpism" is hardly a worthy argument in an ITN discussion. Thue (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WaitSupport Thue has a valid point here, but this also only an intent to withdraw. There is now likely going to be internal politicking going on, possibly on the budget as a bargaining point, before the signature is actually withdrawn. I would wait until the US has committed to the withdraw. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the New York Times article points out, the withdrawal could take 4 years. This is real news, the top headline everywhere, with real consequences RIGHT NOW - there is a reason why e.g. the New York Times is making it a headline now, and not in 4 years. We should of course also post it in 4 years, if the US actually goes through with the withdrawal - 2 posts in 4 years about this extremely significant news item is not too much. Thue (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point, I thought it would be something in a few months with bargaining involved, but clearly it's much longer. Add that there's potential ramifications for some other already-signed countries to drop out, plus a handful of US states their their own action to uphold it, and this is too significant a data point to miss. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously. This is a huge international story and it is being covered as such by just about every news outlet in the world. Just as with Brexit, the correct time to post is now, when the process begins, not when it is formally completed (which, again as in Brexit, will take a long time). Nsk92 (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With Brexit, we posted three times, all at hard points of action: the results of the referendum, the court's judgement that they would have to evoke Section 50 to widthdraw, and the actual passage of legislation to evoke Section 50. This presently is an intent to withdraw (the US already signed) so we should wait until the point of action, the actual "de-signing" point. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Withdrawing from this agreement is of significant international interest, and more than a standard "Trumpism". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Aside from the US ceding influence on the accord, there is fear that it could upend the whole agreement by motivating other nations to pull out or otherwise not meet their commitments. Major international impact. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is from the WaPo story cited by the nominator: "Withdrawing the United States from the agreement could take years due to the accord’s legal structure and language." By that time, a lot could happen -- and somebody else could be president. This is a typical Trumpian media event designed to gain control of a few news cycles before CNN, NYT and WaPo go back to their usual Russia conspiracy mongering. Whiff of greatness (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who remembers George W. Bush's dance on Kyoto, or that dramatic moment when Canada withdrew in 2011? I certainly had to look it up. In another week, this incident will be remembered as "the Trumpism that happened after covfefe" -- if it's remembered at all. Whiff of greatness (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is clearly ITN-worthy (it's not every day the world's largest economy announces its intention to withdraw from a top-tier international agreement), but the Paris Agreement article currently has only a sentence on the topic, along with a rather speculative and narrow sub-section based on discussions by delegates at a pensions conference. Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think we should expect more yet on this; the news is abuzz with tons of speculation of what might happen but that's not our purposes. The article should state Trump is seeking withdrawl and provide his reasons for it, and any immediate reaction (such as several US cities and three states working to support the agreement despite a lack of federal support). Any more detail is beyond our current scope. (The Paris Agreement is otherwise very good). --MASEM (t) 23:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While a lot may happen in 4 years, this is big news now, drawing reactions from many world leaders (compare other "Trumpisms" like "covfefe" or the orb - no reactions apart from Twitter and a concentrated amount of media articles around a few days). Seagull123 Φ 22:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is like a terror attack perpetrated by the US on the rest of the world so its news worthy..--Stemoc22:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trumpose (Oppose), not more Trump creep and this time just about a non-binding agreement. Whether the US is in it officially or not, it really makes little impact, because of the lack of enforcement. --AmaryllisGardenertalk23:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article is quite well sourced now. Added altblurb specifying that it was an agreement on climate change mitigation, more than an agreement on climate change. Neegzistuoja (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Heavy global coverage of what is probably biggest move yet to implement DT's benighted vision of Amerika über Allies (sic). – Sca (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted a modified version of the altblurb. The US Withdrawal article is the subject of a merge discussion; if that closes as "don't merge" we can change the link later. --Jayron3200:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support (was about to post this myself but Jayron beat me to it.) While I share the concerns expressed by some that we don't want ITN to become a Trump news ticker, sometimes he does things that clearly are really significant news. This falls into that category. On a side note the article appears to be in acceptable condition for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image needs to be yanked as soon as possible. This image is not currently available under a free license, so it may not appear on the front page. Without going into detail due to the confidentiality agreement I have through OTRS, it is not public domain. ~ Rob13Talk02:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've started the process of posting a replacement. In the future, please post such concerns to WP:ERRORS; when noted here they tend to get missed. Problems with currently appearing main page content is dealt with faster if posted at WP:ERRORS. --Jayron3202:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- and yes, this is a Trump story; he seems to have gone against all advice, and the consensus within his own party, to do this, and has made it very clear that he, and he alone, is the person responsible for this decision. However, we should be linking United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, not the main Paris Agreement article. -- The Anome (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read above again. When I said "The US Withdrawal article is the subject of a merge discussion; if that closes as "don't merge" we can change the link later" what I meant by that was "The US Withdrawal article is the subject of a merge discussion; if that closes as "don't merge" we can change the link later". I hope that clears up your confusion. --Jayron3203:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trump made the decision as representative of the US people. He campaigned against it, and the US people rewarded him for it. The US refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, this is not new. The US should not hide behind Trump. - hahnchen09:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Trying this again. Last substantial update was on 29th May Monday, 4 bodycount sentences. Before that, 27 May, 2 bodycount sentences. Out of NY Times, LA Times, BBC, Guardian, La Pais, Le Monde, and Der Spiegel, only 1 (Spiegel) has an article about this on the frontpage, when they previously (April 14) had an article claiming the battle was over. Article talk page is discussing whether they should condense the prose due to the event "winding down". I suspect there will never be a clear "end" to this event, and as such the lack of substantial updates and interest from RSes should be enough to pull this. 128.214.69.166 (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal; it seems like it's now time to remove this. We can always add it back should conditions warrant. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal. Not much is served by keeping this on ongoing. I imagine that within the next few months the battle will be over, and if there is a clear point where this happens (probably a declaration of victory by the Iraqi government) that would be an ITN item. --LukeSurltc10:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment Fairly decent article (few BLP issues should be easy to solve), person has a history of controversial behavior, item most certainly in the news. Going to give this snowball a chance. 14 minutes was a little extreme for an "ITN regular" to just decide what "we don't post" per some unwritten rule. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a case of censorship in the United States, but at the same time, everyone agrees this content should be censored (herself included now). Did she break the law? Perhaps, if the Secret Service is investigating her. But as far as ITN is concerned, this is too anecdotal.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This is the type of political mudslinging WP overall (much less ITN) needs to be involved in until its permanence is better known. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox.jpg)
